Steven Mazie, who covers the Supreme Court for The Economist, laid out a lengthy thread the other day on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2022 year-end report. Apparently, the report is *long* on subtext but “makes scant explicit reference to SCOUTS’s most tumultuous year in memory.” Roberts also “paints judges as potential martyrs for the rule of law in the face of profound public pressure opposing their rulings.” We’d like to see the portion of the report where he does that — it’s probably in the subtext.
But one tweet in the thread has gotten more attention than the others; it’s this one in which he notes that the court’s legitimacy is “at an ebb (to put it mildly).”
The report is devoid of soul-searching at a time when SCOTUS's legitimacy and popularity are at an ebb (to put it mildly), and that's no surprise. No hint either of how some lower-court judges have politicized their roles in striking ways.
— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) December 31, 2022
Oh, and Roberts didn’t mention Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife:
(And nothing about how one of the nine justices is married to a person who actively worked to overturn the results of the 2020 election.)
— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) December 31, 2022
This is a time when the popularity and legitimacy of the media, and The Economist, is at an ebb:
The DNC and the regime thank you for your service
— Jim Muessig (@JimMuessig) January 2, 2023
SCOTUS legitimacy is NOT in question. You injecting your personal opinions doesn't make this journalism.
— Colorado Native 007 (@CONative007) January 2, 2023
SCOTUS’ legitimacy isn’t in question.
What ass did you pull that from?
— T. L. (@TakingHisTime) January 2, 2023
Recommended
I’m so sorry that a leftist court turned conservative and you are butthurt about it.
Nah, just joking.😄
— Jay Infinite (@Jay_yesthat1) January 2, 2023
As a journalist you surely know what it means to have your legitimacy questioned, but not sure how that qualifies you to judge the legitimacy of anyone else.
— Dan Krishock (@dkrishock) January 2, 2023
Its only at an ebb because Democratic propagandists that call themselves “journalists” don’t like what the court is doing.
— Patrick Henry,The2nd (@patrickhenry2nd) January 2, 2023
Translation: “Anything us Neo-Communists don’t control is illegitimate. Why? Because we said so.”
— Angry Lion (@AngryLi0n1) January 2, 2023
Who is causing the supreme court's "legitimacy" to be at risk?
Could it be journos and left wing activists attacking the institution because they want it to serve their political purposes?
Absolutely shameful https://t.co/rDeX7MRtS1
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) January 2, 2023
It's entirely left-wing journalists making this up.
— Fukushima Breezes (@FBreezez) January 2, 2023
Insanity. “Their legitimacy is in question because they haven’t ruled the way I thought they should” is an amazing take
— Not a bot Na te y (@Natey24128144) January 2, 2023
And we’re not sure why we’re supposed to care that the court’s popularity is at an ebb (among journalists). Is there some rule that journalists covering the court have to be progressives who’d just as soon see the court abolished?
***
Related:
NYT: Legal scholars say the Supreme Court has been insisting it should have the last word https://t.co/QJ8w4LHhAY
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) December 19, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member